Thomas Farm Open House Recap

Photo by the National Park Service. Used with permission.

Dear Friends,

We did it! The Monocacy National Battlefield opened the doors to the Thomas House last weekend, the conclusion of the Open House trifecta. I had a blast.

The Open House events this year were each a full weekend. For the Thomas House, Diane and I met at the battlefield on Friday night to make sure we had our bearings before we went in front of the public. Basically, we had a group meeting while hiking the Thomas Farm trail, which has to be my favorite kind of meeting. The park has opened the Thomas House a few times before, but it was restored into office space for the park's headquarters, which makes for a unique interpretation experience.

Last Saturday's weather was beautiful - sunny, warm but not crazy-hot - and we had several living historians camping outside. I never got a free minute to go talk to them, but a few came in at the end of the day and mentioned they had a non-stop stream of visitors. Yay! Most living historians I've met love talking to people about their areas of research, and I'm so glad they had a great day.

Don't think the outdoor historians were the only ones talking, however! The star of the show was the Thomas House itself: we had rangers and volunteers stationed throughout the house to talk about some of its historic features as our visitors wandered through, and Tracy had arranged to give the ranger program in the parlor. We had so many people interested in attending the ranger program that they all quickly became standing-room-only.

Since I was stationed in the entrance just outside the parlor, that gave me an opportunity to give an impromptu program each time. Ask me how happy I was to do that. C'mon, just ask me.

I was elated.

I was even happier when several people I spoke with mentioned they or others in their group grew up in either the manor house or the tenant house on the property. While we preserve the houses on the battlefield because they are witnesses of war, these houses were homes. Personally, I tend to avoid researching the modern families who lived in our historic properties because so many are still living and I want to respect their privacy. However, hearing about the Thomas House's more modern history as a home, and meeting some of the people who still consider it home even though they no longer live here, was so wonderful.

The park dates the manor house to about 1780, but acknowledges that it's possible that construction began several years earlier. James Marshall, the original owner, seems to have made Frederick County his home well before 1780, and had purchased the property even before that. He was a Scottish emigrant who made his fortune in tobacco trading and then dabbled in a few other areas like timber prospecting and land prospecting. Like my waistline, the house footprint expanded over the years and the style decor changed, but you can see from the photo above that the facade is styled to show its Federal origins. Diane's beautiful blue dress (in the picture at the top of this post) reflects the era the house was constructed. I'd love to show you the close-up photo the NPS took so you could see her dress more clearly, but the angle of that photo gave both of us double-chins - especially me - and I object to that.

My dress, on the other hand, is more appropriate for the Civil War battle that did so much damage to the  house. I talked about a shell crashing into the dining room and exploding in earlier posts, but my favorite part of letting the public into the Thomas House is that I can point out some of the smaller bullet scarring in the front entryway. A woman and her sons came in about 10 minutes until closing on Saturday, and I asked if they just wanted to explore or if they'd like me to talk. Mom voted to hear me talk, but when Al gave me the 5-more-minutes-until-closing signal, Mom told the kids they could go explore very quickly while she listened to more stories. I asked them to let me tell them one quick story before they explored; naturally, I chose the story that ends with the bullet hole in the door and the scarring in the panelling. Mom, with a big grin on her face, said, "That was so the right call. They loved that."

(Shameless plug: If you're wondering what story ends with the bullet hole in the door, etc., come ask us at Museums by Candlelight. It's usually the second Saturday in December, and we like to host it in the Thomas House.)

Getting back to last weekend's event, the weather Sunday morning was less cheerful than Saturday's weather.  Weather reports threatened all-day thunderstorms, and it was raining when I drove up to the Visitor Center. Fortunately, the rain stopped just before the event began so even though it was a slower start than Saturday, we still enjoyed quite a few guests.

I gave the formal programs on Sunday, and a few guests came up to me afterward to show me family photos taken at the Thomas House when it was a tenant farm.  One brought a wedding photo from the 1930s; it was very obvious that it had been taken in the L at the rear of the house. She told me she would email us a copy; I haven't seen it yet but really hope she does.

After giving my last scheduled program of the day, I was cleaning up the parlor when Kelly brought in a couple who wanted to know more about the history of the house. I started talking, they found seats and settled in to enjoy themselves, and, a couple at a time, more and more people wandered in and decided to stay to listen. I'm learning that I really like being able to give off-the-cuff presentations. I would have thought I'd like the safety net of having slides, but I'm finding that I get more interaction from the audience when it's just me and them, and I like the flexibility to adjust if I'm seeing cues that something either isn't resonating or is generating more interest than I expected.

Because I was downstairs all weekend and Diane was upstairs, we didn't really get to see each other. Naturally, after the event, Diane and I had another "group meeting" over dinner where we recapped the weekend and talked about ideas for the future.

I have so many ideas I want to share with you, so please stay tuned for some exciting new posts!

Old McDonald Had a Farm (and the farm was run by horsepower)

Part of the Thomas Farm. Photo by Elizabeth Richardson.

Dear Friends,

The morning of the battle, Mr. Worthington and his slaves harvested as much of their crops as they could, and then he ordered his slaves to gather all the horses and take them to the darkest, most remote area on Sugar Loaf Mountain. The hope was to keep them out of the hands of the Confederate "thank you for your contribution to the war effort" raiders. Only Old Davy - the carriage horse - and an old mule were left behind. During the battle, Col. Randolph Barton had his horse shot out from underneath him. Apparently a colonel can't do what colonels do without a horse, so his orderly scouted around for a replacement. He found Old Davy. The old horse was brought to the colonel, who mounted only to have Old Davy shot out from under him a few minutes later. Poor Old Davy. As for the hidden  horses, SPOILER ALERT: the Confederates got them. They weren't alone; about 200 horses were "hidden" on that mountain from area farmers and they were all taken.¹

So when the battle was over and they needed to clean up their fields, hitching the horses to their wagons to go collect the debris was out of the question. Ditto for hitching their horses to their plows to clear out what's left of the summer harvest or planting a fall harvest for the next crop. I'll write another post about some of the technology advances that we know were being used or tested by the battlefield farms during the Civil War, but the bottom line is that animals provided most of the power on a farm. Not only did our battlefield farms lose their crops from the battle, but also a lot of the ability to just run the day-to-day aspects of a farm.

This is an extreme example of intentional livestock theft, but it wasn't a happy day when a farm discovered even one of his animals had wandered off this property, either. Good, strong fences help keep animals where they belong, but to add insult to injury for our battlefield farmers, whenever the Confederate and Union armies came through, they had a tendency to take off with our farmers' wooden fences. We know this from the damage claims some of our farms filed with the government² and also the following advertisement³ run in April 1863:

TO THE PUBLIC.
   The undersigned hereby give public notice to all whom it may concern, that they intend impounding all stock found tresspassing upon their lands.  In consequence of their fencing beind destroyed in a great measure by the army, it is impossible for them to have their farms fenced in time, and therefore hope and expect, that all those having stock in the neighborhood or otherwise, will see to having it secured in such manner as not to be found tresspassing at large upon their premises.
          RICHARD W. ROLLAND,
          JOHN T. WORTHINGTON,
          DAVID BEST,
          ISAAC H. HOWARD,
          J. H. GAMBRILL,
          JACOB C. KANODE,
          C. K. THOMAS,
          JOHN REICH,
          PHILIP REICH,
          CALVIN PAGE.
   April 8--paid

The Confederate and Union armies had both camped here and confiscated the local farmers' fencing during the Maryland Campaign on their way to Antietam. I've found no evidence to indicate whether these farmers found stray livestock on their lands that season, but anyone who has ever had Houdini-reincarnated-as-the-family-pet knows that animals have a way of getting past barriers if they really want to. It's become a bit of a running joke that the first newspaper notice I find about a new family I'm researching is usually an advertisement alerting neighbors they found a stray.

Interestingly, the tone of these advertisements have changed over time. In the 1700s and early 1800's, the tone is neighborly and informative, such as this advertisement placed by James Marshall⁴:

                                  Frederick County, September 15, 1773
THERE is now at my plantation, on Monocassy, a brindled STEER about three years old, with a swallow fork in each ear, and a piece cut off the top on the lower side of each fork. The owner is desired to prove his property, pay charges, and take him away.
                                  JAMES MARSHALL

According to the NPS's Archeology Assessment, Marshall owned most of what would eventually become the Monocacy National Battlefield⁵ (plus some); that's a lot of land for strays to hide. I don't yet know if Marshall had fencing around the entire perimeter of his estate, which would have minimized bovine trespassers if it was in good shape, but his "I found your livestock" notices didn't lose their neighborly tone as time went on:

                                    February 23, 1786
Taken up as STRAYS,
AT the plantation of the Subscriber, four miles from Frederick Town, TWO MARES; the one is a sorrel, about four years old, 12 hands high, with a large blaze, white mane and tail, and four white feet; a natural pacer, without any perceivable brand; the other a dark Bay, about ten years old, 14 hands high, with a star and a snip, high withers, ridged back, from the middle to the croupe, a natural pacer and goes narrow behind, without any perceivable brand.  The owners are desired to prove their property, pay charges, and take them away.
                                    JAMES MARSHALL ⁶

Of course, as we saw from the story at the beginning of this post, not all animals who left home did so under their own power. It wasn't long before someone who found stray animals on their property found it necessary to practice a little legal CYA. Fast forward about 40 years, and notices have a bit of a different tone. In fact, they all seem to follow the same formula; here's an example of an advertisement placed on behalf of David Best in 1863⁷:

ESTRAY.
Maryland, Frederick County, Sct:
I HEREBY certify, that David Best, of said County, brought before me, the subscriber, one of the Justices of the Peace in and for the said County, this 20th day of February, 1863, as a Stray, trespassing upon his enclosures, a very large RED STEER or OXEN, supposed to be about ten years old.  Given under my hand.
                                 J. M. HARDING.
   The owner of the above described Steer or Oxen, is requested to prove property, pay charges, and take him away.
                                         DAVID BEST,
   Living about two miles South of Frederick City.
                                              February 25--pd 

I can't help but wonder if that red steer belonged to one of our other families. This is an area where more research is needed to know what kind of incentives were driving those who found stray livestock to get the courts involved. After all, it seems far more neighborly (and cheaper) to just send one of the kids across the field to knock on the neighbor's door to see if they're missing a red steer than to haul that animal a few miles into town to appear before the judge and put a notice in the newspaper. Every "stray" notice that I've found so far in Frederick newspapers during the Civil War era follows this same formula, but what isn't clear is whether it was used as a last resort or the first step after finding that stray. I'm looking forward to learning more, and if anyone reading this happens to have done research in this area, please respond in the comments!

---

1 Glenn H. Worthington, Fighting for Time, second revised edition (White Mane Publishing Co., 1985), first edition (Glenn H. Worthington, 1932), p101-103, p155-56 and footnote on 167.^↩
2 "Claims for Civil War Damages," Synopsis of various Civil War damage claims by Frederick County farms on the Monocacy Battlefield, undated; Monocacy National Battlefield library, Frederick, Maryland, Interp files, Claims for Civil War Damages.^↩
3 "To the Public [impounding tresspassing stock]," advertisement article, The (Frederick, Maryland) Examiner, 08 Apr 1863, p2, col 7, ad6.^↩
4 "There is now at my plantation." Maryland Journal, September 05, 1773; p. 4.^↩
5 Beasley, Joy (2010). Archeology Overview, Assessment, Identification, and Evaluation Study of the Thomas Farm. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; p. 19.^↩
6 "Taken up as strays." Maryland Chronicle, or Universal Advertiser, March 01, 1786; p. 3.^↩
7 "Estray [found by David Best]," advertisement article, The (Frederick, Maryland) Examiner, 25 Feb 1863, p2, col6, ad3.^↩

Maryland's 1778 Oath of Fidelity and Support

The Thomas House, previously known as Araby.

To Mr. Thomas Beatty, Sheriff of Frederick County.
SIR,
I Acquainted you, last time you called here, that I intended to be with you about the end of last week, to pay you my part of the public dues, for that I expected, by that time, the Assembly would reconsider their late act, imposing a treble tax on those who had omitted to take the oath they prescribed to be taken by the inhabitants of this State, by the first of last March, and make such alteration as justice and the nature of the case require.
     My judgment on that act is, that it is unreasonable, oppressive, and destructive of such peaceable inhabitants as have omitted to take that oath, and therefore unjust, supposing no Bill of Rights had been first made to guard them from such destruction; but as the act in question manifestly violates and destroys that Declaration of the People’s Rights, if the Assembly do not rectify it, this Bill of Rights, which ought to have been sacred, is a dead letter—a mere nothing!
     As you are an officer, it is not your business to judge of laws, but to execute them; nor do I write this to interfere with your office and duty, it rather flows (by the bye) from a sense of oppression, and of injustice.  It is a forfeiture expressly guarded against by the declared rights of the people at large, and which the Assembly ought carefully to have preserved.
     I have only now to desire of you to be under no uneasiness on account of the extent of what the present law requires you to collect from me, for if no alteration is made, I shall pay it (if I live) before the end of this month.  My equal assessment and levies come to 591, which I have now in readiness to pay; but the treble assessment.  I have not, in money, at present, but will take care to raise it in time, to prevent you from any further trouble on account of
Sir, your humble servant,
     June 16, 1778.              JAMES MARSHALL.      June 17, 1778.—I do hereby certify, that the above is a true copy of a letter directed to me as sheriff of Frederick County.—Witness my hand,                                            THOMAS BEATTY¹

I found the above letter while doing some research on James Marshall in advance of our Open House event for the Thomas farm. When C. K. Thomas purchased the farm in 1860, it was known as Araby, a portion of a much larger estate originally created by James Marshall. Marshall emigrated to the colonies from Glasgow, Scotland in 1747 and in 1758 began purchasing the land that would eventually become the Araby estate. There is some uncertainty about exactly when the brick manor house was built, but "is believed to have been about 1780."²

Since it would be impossible to talk about the Thomas house without talking about James Marshall, I wanted to know who he was. I haven't found the wealth of newspaper articles I've found about some of the estate's later owners, so I was especially thrilled to find the above article.

Most of us learned in school that not everyone living in the colonies was for independence: a third was for, a third was against, and another third was just waiting it out to see who would win. In 1777, Maryland's political leaders were struggling to tamp down chaos and insurrection from having voted for independence before Maryland's citizens were truly on board. That's a gross oversimplification, and if you're interested in learning more about this time in Maryland history, I recommend the first two articles published in the Summer 1973 edition of the Maryland Historical Magazine.^3,4 To make a long story very short, the new government passed the Security Act, which basically required that all free men sign the Oath of Fidelity and Support, or face some difficult consequences.

The first of those consequences were that Marshall would have to pay triple taxes on all personal and real property for the rest of his life. He was barred from many professions, not allowed to vote or hold office, and couldn't bring a suit to court. This last bit is especially important because as a businessman, you sometimes need courts to implement consequences if, for example, your tenants fail to pay rents.

Those consequences of not complying with the law were not enough to coax Marshall to sign the oath. As you can read from his letter, he did not see how the government could enact a law that was so contrary to everything against which it was supposed to be rebelling. He gambled that the legislature would see reason and repeal the law before the consequences kicked in, and he lost.

More research is needed to know if he is one of the many who applied to the legislature for relief, or if he waited them out.⁴ Fortunately, many of the consequences for not signing the oath were gradually relaxed over the next decade, and when he died in 1803 he was still a very wealthy man.⁵

---

1 Marshall, James (1778, Jul 23). To Mr Thomas Beatty, Sheriff of Frederick County. Maryland Journal, p. 4. Retrieved from www.genealogybank.com.^↩
2 Beasley, Joy, editor (2010). Archeological Overview, Assessment, Identification, and Evaluation Study of the Thomas Farm, p19-20.^↩
3 Hoffman, Ronald (Summer 1973). Popularizing the Revolution: Internal Conflict and Economic Sacrifice in Maryland, 1774-1780. Maryland Historical Magazine, p125-139. Retrieved from http://msa.maryland.gov.^↩
4 Richard A. (Summer 1973). A Patriot Dilemma: The Treatment of Passive Loyalists and Neutrals in Revolutionary Maryland. Maryland Historical Magazine, p125-139. Retrieved from http://msa.maryland.gov.^↩
5 "Maryland Register of Wills Records, 1629-1999," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-24294-37509-50?cc=1803986 : 20 May 2014), Frederick > Wills 1794-1803 vol 3; image 306 of 332; Hall of Records, Annapolis.^↩

Don't Tell Victoire About "A Woman's Place"

Note: This blog post is not intended to be a complete commentary on this subject. Those who have been to the Monocacy National Battlefield may read this and ask,"But what about the slavery at that plantation?" That's not a subject to which I can do justice in a single paragraph on this blog posts; it deserves a more complete commentary in separate blog posts devoted to that subject.

Dear Friends,

The Best Farm, formerly known as L'Hermitage

I'd really like to know what kind of education Victoire Vincendiere had that prepared her for the kind of life she lived. This is a woman who seems to have spent her life defying convention, and she was very successful at it. 

The National Park Service's records indicate that Victoire was born in Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti) in 1776. Much of her early life is unknown, but we do know that in 1795 she purchased from Daniel Dulaney 457 acres, and in 1798 she purchased another 291 acres from James Marshall.¹ This would become the home the family referred to as L'Hermitage.

Did you catch that? Victoire -- not her father or her older brother or a male "family friend" -- purchased both tracts of land. In fact, her father decided to set up his own household down in Charleston, South Carolina, while most of the rest of the family decided to stay with Victoire just outside Frederick, Maryland. If the 1776 birth year is correct, she would have been 19 years old when she purchased that first tract of land.

It's on the acreage she purchased from Marshall that she and her family built the manor house and associated outbuildings. Since she purchased that tract in 1798, and was hit with a massive tax assessment that same year for improvements, there is speculation that she may have had an agreement with Marshall that allowed her to begin building before the sale was made official.²

Just two years later in the 1800 census, Victoire is living in a household with 18 free whites and 90 slaves.³ We can speculate all day long why she had so many slaves, and we can debate how much credibility we should lend to data in a census while we work to track down more data, but it's clear that Victoire wasn't interested in running just a small family farm. She really embraced the philosophy "Go big or go home."

She doesn't seem to have been operating on a shoestring budget, either. In 1803, when James Marshall passed away, she had sufficient funds to join with Norm Bruce to lend William and Eleanor Marshall the 10,000 pounds they needed for the administrators bond to execute the will.⁴

Victoire wouldn't ultimately sell L'Hermitage until 1827, but several years earlier in 1820 she ran a newspaper advertisement that listed many of the buildings on the property⁵:

A HANDSOME FARM,
FOR SALE.
THE subscriber offers for sale, her FARM, containing 500 ACRES OF PRIME LAND, the greatest part of which has been improved by clover and plaster.  This Farm is beautifully situated on Monocacy River, three miles from Fredericktown, (Md.) on the George-town road, 38 miles from the latter city, and 10 from Potomac; about 60 acres of it are in fine tim[b]er.
   THE improvements are -- a good two story STONE HOUSE with six rooms and a Cellar; a stone barn; stone stable, large enough for 15 horses; a good two story log dwelling log house; a granary, corn, pigeon, meat log houses; ice house and others; a large well, which, altho' upon a hill, has never less than 20 feet of most excellent lime stone water, even in the driest seasons; a good and well situated garden, of four acres of fruit trees, of several kinds.
   Also, a tract containing 250 Acres of LAND, adjoining the above, and only two miles from Fredericktown, which will be sold with, or seperate [sic] from the first.
   Also, a tract of 37 Acres of Mountain LAND, on the east bank of Monocacy, opposite the above farm. For further information apply to Mr. PETER LAFONT, Baltimore, and the Owner living in said Farm.
                 VICTOIRE VINCENDIERE    april 28 

That sounds almost idyllic. When she did sell the plantation, she sold all 748 acres to John Brien for $24,025.⁶ When she had originally purchased the property back in 1795 and 1798, she had paid 7,023 pounds. Dollars and pounds are not an apples-to-apples comparison, but if we compare that to the value assessment placed on her property for taxes in 1798, we're comparing $24025 in 1827 to $1923 in 1798 for the land only and to $2323 for the land with improvements.² Minimally, she had realized a 10x increase in property value over the 33 years she had managed it, and that doesn't include the revenue she would have seen during her ownership from selling her crops, etc. Not bad for a female immigrant who started as a teenager.

Which practically begs the question: From where did she get this business acumen? I suspect we aren't going to find that her childhood education included classes on how to build and manage a plantation in America. While there is no question that her use and treatment of slaves was wrong, she was using business practices that were accepted during her lifetime. Who was guiding her, at least in the beginning, in these business decisions?

---

1 Reed, Paula Stoner, PhD. Monocacy National Battlefield Cultural Resources Study. Interior Department, National Park Service, 1999, p. 58.^↩
2 Ibid, p. 59.^↩
3 United States Federal Census 1800. Frederick, Frederick, Maryland; Series M32, Roll 10, National Archives and Records Administration, pp. 153. ^↩
4 Administrator Bonds Liber Hs No 1-2, 1799-1817. Frederick County, Maryland, Orphans' Court (Frederick County), James Marshall, 15 Jun 1803. Although William Marshall, Eleanor Marshall, Norm Bruce, and Victoire Vincendierre all signed the administrator bond, only the two Marshalls submitted and signed the inventory as executors, so it is likely that Bruce's and Vincendierre's role in administering the will was covering the loan.^↩
5 Vincendierre, Victoire. (1820, June 12) "A Handsome Farm," Baltimore Patriot, p. 1.^↩
6 Reed, Paula Stoner, PhD. Monocacy National Battlefield Cultural Resources Study. Interior Department, National Park Service, 1999, p. 60.^↩